Law Commons^™

Confederated Tribes Of The Warm Springs Reservation Water Rights Settlement Agreement, Confederated Tribes Of The Warm Springs Reservation Et Al

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Reservation, and long-term cooperative management of the waters. The Tribes shall not convert any existing non-consumptive use to a consumptive use. The Agreement designates the amounts of instream flows and diverted water for the Tribes. The Tribes have the first priority for their Tribal Reserved Water Right; however, existing State law water rights will not be curtailed in favor of the Tribal Reserved water right. The water right may be obtained from surface or groundwater. A part of the Tribal Reserved Water Right may be used off reservation, subject to federal, state and Tribal Law. While used on Reservation the …

Order Granting Motion For Extension, Harold H. Greene

Sandia Pueblo Mountain Claim

No abstract provided.

Plaintiff's Reply To Intervenor-Defendants' Memorandum In Opposition To Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment, And Plaintiff's Response To Intervenor-Defendants' Cross-Motion For Summary Judgment, Peter T. Grossi Jr.

Sandia Pueblo Mountain Claim

No abstract provided.

Plaintiff's Response To Bernalillo County's Proposed Uncontroverted Facts, Peter T. Grossi Jr.

Sandia Pueblo Mountain Claim

No abstract provided.

Speaking To Tribal Judges On The Matter Of Improving Children's Court Practice In Child Abuse And Neglect Cases In Our Country: A Proposal For A Uniform Children's Code, Julian D. Pinkham

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Since the 1970 the responsibilities of the tribal children's courts have increased dramatically. In child welfare case tribal courts no longer simply determine whether a child has been abused or neglected. They now also oversee the placement of the child in a shelter, foster care, or a permanent home, as well as determine the parent's treatment or visitation rights The complexity of the cases causes unacceptable delays in placing Indian children in need of care and hinders the placement of Indian children within the tribal community.

Judge Pinkham introduces a proposed solution to the problems of current tribal child welfare …

Resource Law Notes Newsletter, No. 41, Fall Issue, Aug. 1997, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center

Resource Law Notes: The Newsletter of the Natural Resources Law Center (1984-2002)

No abstract provided.

Indian Tribes And The Legal System, Ralph W. Johnson

Washington Law Review

This article surveys the past and present role of lawyers in the field of Indian law, from the absence of attorneys in early treaty negotiations through the formative role lawyers played in developing the federal trust relationship, to their modem role as "legal warriors" for the increasingly independent, autonomous tribes of today. To understand all the changes now occurring in Indian law, a review of the background is helpful. What follows is a synopsis of the significant events in Indian history, focusing on how the U.S. government initially treated Indians and the role the legal profession played in this treatment.

Wolf Warriors And Turtle Kings: Native American Law Before The Blue Coats, Rennard Strickland

Washington Law Review

One of the great myths of the white invention of the Indian was that there was no law among Native Americans before the white man except for a single Indian "primitive" legal system of blood revenge, uniform across the North American continent. This is not so. Law existed among Native Peoples long before white contact. Quite simply, the Indians had law. Before white contact, Native America nourished a rich and diverse system of law-a system of law that varied dramatically from people to people.

The Role Of Bilateralism In Fulfilling The Federal-Tribal Relationship: The Tribal Rights-Endangered Species Secretarial Order, Charles Wilkinson

Washington Law Review

On June 5, 1997, Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt and Secretary of Commerce William Daley signed a jointly-released Secretarial Order entitled "American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act"' The Order culminated a year-and-a-half of work by tribes and federal officials to craft an administrative system for resolving difficult questions involving tribal rights and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Order is important for the ESA's implementation. It also carries broader significance, for it serves as one major example of how the government-to-government relationship between the United States and Indian tribes can be successfully implemented.

Dedication To Professor Ralph W. Johnson, David H. Getches

Articles

This Indian law symposium issue of the Washington Law Review was inspired by the work of Professor Ralph W. Johnson, whose teaching and personal commitment to the field have motivated hundreds, if not thousands, of law students. The decision of the Editorial Board to dedicate the symposium to him might have been made by as many as thirty classes that have passed through the University of Washington School of Law. Those students have been introduced to and moved by Professor Johnson's elucidation of a field that is at once intellectually challenging and morally significant. Johnson's alumni have spread over the …

Indian Tribes And The Legal System, Ralph W. Johnson

Articles

This article surveys the past and present role of lawyers in the field of Indian law, from the absence of attorneys in early treaty negotiations through the formative role lawyers played in developing the federal trust relationship, to their modem role as "legal warriors" for the increasingly independent, autonomous tribes of today. To understand all the changes now occurring in Indian law, a review of the background is helpful. What follows is a synopsis of the significant events in Indian history, focusing on how the U.S. government initially treated Indians and the role the legal profession played in this treatment.

Overextended Borrowing: Tribal Peacemaking Applied In Non-Indian Disputes, Carole E. Goldberg

Washington Law Review

Respected figures within the U.S. legal system are saying that the system could be improved by borrowing elements from Native American dispute resolution. To longtime students of Indian Law, this is a striking shift of rhetoric. Historically, non-Indian America has either ignored or dismissed tribal law, often characterizing tribes as lawless. But has the rhetoric merely shifted from condescension to impractical romanticizing? This article examines and analyzes the position taken by non-Indian advocates of borrowing from tribal justice systems and considers whether such borrowing can really work.

Bernalillo's County's Cross-Motion For Summary Judgment, Thomas R. Bartman, Carol E. Dinkins

Sandia Pueblo Mountain Claim

Defendant-Intervenor Bernalillo County, New Mexico adopts this cross-motion in support of the Federal Defendants' Cross-motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support (filed June 27, 1997). As set out in the Federal Defendants Memorandum in Support, the administrative record demonstrates that Secretary Hodel's decision not to grant the Pueblo's claim was fully supported by the record and was neither arbitrary nor capricious, and that Secretary Babbitt's inaction on the Pueblo's claim does not constitute reviewable final agency action and/or was not arbitrary and capricious.

Intervenor-Defendant Bernalillo County's Memorandum In Opposition To Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment And In Support Of County's Cross-Motion For Summary Judgment, Thomas R. Bartman, Carol E. Dinkins

Sandia Pueblo Mountain Claim

Intervenor-defendant Bernalillo County, New Mexico states its opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment of Plaintiff Pueblo of Sandia (filed June 26, 1996) and joins in with and adopts the United States' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (filed June 27, 1997). Further, Defendant Bernalillo County moves the Court to grant it summary judgment on the same grounds on which it opposes Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Motion.

Plaintiff's Reply To Defendants' Memorandum In Opposition To Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment, And Plaintiff's Response To Defendants' Cross-Motion For Summary Judgment, Peter T. Grossi Jr.

Sandia Pueblo Mountain Claim

No abstract provided.

Nativeamericans And The Vaccine Act: Excluding Those We Found Here , James D. Leach

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Justifying Repatriation Of Native American Cultural Property, Sarah Harding

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Putting Martinez To The Test: Tribal Court Disposition Of Due Process, Christian M. Freitag

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Federal Defendants' Statement Of Genuine Issues In Response To Plaintiff's Statement Of Undisputed Facts, Andrew M. Eschen

Sandia Pueblo Mountain Claim

No abstract provided.

Reply Brief For Petitioners

Duwamish Indian Tribe v. United States, Docket No. 96-1607 (522 U.S. 806 (1997))

No abstract provided.

San Carlos Apache Tribe Amendments To Act Of 1992, 1997 Amendment To The San Carlos Apache Tribe Water Rights Settlement, 105th Congress

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Federal Legislation: Department of the Interior, General Provisions - San Carlos Apache Tribe Amendments to Act of 1992, Chapter 5 of Emergency Supplemental Appropriations For Recovery From Natural Disasters, And For Overseas Peacekeeping Efforts, Including Those In Bosnia, PL 105-18, 111 Stat. 158, 181-187 (Jun. 12, 1997). Parties: US & San Carlos Apache Tribe. 1992 Settlement Act amended 3711 to move deadline to Mar. 31, 1999 & effect on deadline of submission of a proposed Settlement Agreement to Gila Adjudication court; and addition of certain parties & definitions to the 1992 Settlement Agreement. The provisions address the transfer of the …

Brief For The United States In Opposition

Duwamish Indian Tribe v. United States, Docket No. 96-1607 (522 U.S. 806 (1997))

No abstract provided.

Brief In Opposition For Respondents The Tulalip Tribes, Muckelshoot Tribe, The Nisqually Tribe, The Puyallup Tribe And The Squaxin Island Tribe

Duwamish Indian Tribe v. United States, Docket No. 96-1607 (522 U.S. 806 (1997))

No abstract provided.

Rocky Boy's Indian Reservation Compact, Mt, Chippewa-Cree Tribe

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Settlement - State Legislation: There is no stand alone settlement agreement: Water Rights Compact - MT, Chippewa-Cree Tribe of Rocky Boy's Reservation & US of 1997 (MCA 85-20-601) This Compact arose out of a MT state court water rights adjudication. It serves both as settlement agreement and state legislation. The Compact sets forth the Tribe’s rights and involve Stoneman Reservoir, East Fork Reservoir, Gravel Coulee, Lower Big Sandy Creek, Ancestral Missouri River Channel Aquifer, Box Elder Creek, Beaver Creek, Camp Creek, Duck Creek, Gorman Creek, Lake Elwell, Bonneau Reservoir, Brown’s Reservoir, and new impoundments. It identifies rights in groundwater and …

Petition For Writ Of Certiorari

Duwamish Indian Tribe v. United States, Docket No. 96-1607 (522 U.S. 806 (1997))

No abstract provided.

Resource Law Notes Newsletter, No. 40, Spring Issue, Apr. 1997, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center

Resource Law Notes: The Newsletter of the Natural Resources Law Center (1984-2002)

No abstract provided.

The Courts, The Government, And Native Americans: The Politics And Jurisprudence Of Systematic Unfairness, Daniel T. Campbell

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Prosecuting The Fishery: The Supreme Court Of Canada And The Onus Of Proof In Aboriginal Fishing Cases, Peggy J. Blair

Dalhousie Law Journal

In Sparrow and other decisions, the Supreme Court of Canada has outlined certain tests which must be met by the Crown and defence in the trial of aboriginal fishing cases where s.35 rights are at issue. This article describes the shifting burdens of proof which have resulted from those tests. The author argues that the Supreme Court of Canada has imposed procedural and substantive requirements of proof on the defence which may in themselves be unconstitutional.

Reply Brief Of Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant Indian Tribes

United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 96-35014, 96-35082, 96-35142, 96-35196, 96-35200, 96-35223 (135 F.3d 618 (9th Cir. 1998))

No abstract provided.

Reply Brief For The United States, Appellee/Cross-Appellant

United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 96-35014, 96-35082, 96-35142, 96-35196, 96-35200, 96-35223 (135 F.3d 618 (9th Cir. 1998))

No abstract provided.